Sign up for POLITICO Magazine's weekly email: The Friday Cover

Congressional Moneyball

How effective are your senators? And guess who’s No. 1?

By MOLLY JACKMAN, SAUL JACKMAN and BRIAN BOESSENECKER

January 14, 2014

Next, we can go on to calculate a batting average for each senator—the percentage of bills sponsored that were placed on the floor calendar. The advantage of looking at this stat rather than the raw number of hits is that it accounts for those legislators who are introducing a lot of bills that are going nowhere. For instance, despite his Senate-leading 61 at-bats, none of Vitter’s bills made it out of committee—not the most efficient use of government time.

Most Popular

Here’s what might be the most surprising result of all: Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) was the clear leader in the Senate, with seven of his eight bills making it out of committee, good for a 0.875 average. By comparison, in second place—and the leading Democrat—was Tim Johnson (D-S.D.), who saw three of his six bills survive committee. On the other hand, 29 senators—including 16 Republicans, 12 Democrats and one Independent—had a zero percent success rate.

Interestingly, some senators who did well on hits and batting average were able to avoid the committee stage altogether. According to Senate Rule XIV, senators can bypass the committee stage and have their bills placed on the floor calendar with the same status as if they had been considered and reported by committee. This was the case, for example, with Senator Cruz’s Senate Bill 1292, which would defund Obamacare. Regardless of how he did it, Cruz got a hit, since the bill was placed on the floor calendar. However, Rule XIV does not ensure that the bill will be considered by the Senate, and SB1292 never came to a vote. Considering the full progression of bills in the legislative process will, thus, provide a better picture of legislative effectiveness – and we will do just that in the coming weeks on the FixGov blog.

Playing general manager

So, who is the more effective senator? Vitter, who batted 61 times and recorded zero hits? Or Cruz, who only came to bat on eight occasions, but saw most of his bills through the committee process? In a Congress with limited time, it is hard to justify wasting resources on bills that have no future. On the other hand, taking positions though the introduction of bills is a valuable legislative activity, enabling legislators to define their preferences and parties their platforms. We think efficiency is more valuable, and will build on this point in the coming weeks on the Center for Effective Public Management’s FixGov blog, housed at the Brooking Institution.

To be sure, the measures shown here only cover the tip of the iceberg when it comes to evaluating members of Congress. While getting bills past second reading is important, it is nonetheless just the first step on the path to becoming a bill. Nor are all bills equally important: Ceremonial bills should not be given the same credit as landmark legislation. Additionally, senators can also cosponsor legislation and subsequently lobby for that bill’s passage. (We will turn to each of these nuances in subsequent posts on the Brookings website.)

But the fact is, even if we just focus on the most straightforward of measures, the Senate is not serving its intended role in the U.S. political system. Rather, it is characterized by partisan bickering and contentiousness—far from the “cooling saucer” George Washington described. Moreover, representation cannot occur if senators cannot get their bills to the floor for a vote, much less to pass. Regardless of whether voting Democrat or Republican, citizens need to choose candidates who can effectively persuade their colleagues to support their bills as they move forward in the legislative process. We hope that these metrics provide some insight into who those candidates are so that voters can more effectively manage their team.